On 02/05/2013 05:58 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> There is an additional reference added to the driver in cpufreq_add_dev() that is removed in__cpufreq_governor() if the driver implements target(). Remove the last reference when the driver implements setpolicy() Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 622e282..d17477b 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1049,6 +1049,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif if (cpufreq_driver->target) __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); + if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) + cpufreq_cpu_put(data);I don't understand this patch at all.. I grepped both cpufreq_cpu_get() & put() in bleeding-edge and found everything to be correct. Can you please point me to the exact line numbers ?
Line 878 in cpufreq_add_dev() --Dirk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
